(Newser)
–
Josh Sutinen isn't old enough to vote and only got his driver's license last month, but he's already among the leaders in a national backlash against cameras that issue traffic tickets. The 17-year-old has worked for most of this year pushing an initiative to ban red-light and speed cameras in his hometown of Longview, Washington, and he's in the final stages of a signature-collection effort that has him fighting the city council. "These cameras are really just another big government attack on our rights," he says. "It's just taxation through citation."

Sutinen's plan is one of four similar ballot proposals around Washington this year. Voters in more than a dozen cities nationwide have passed referendums banning the cameras while nine states now prohibit them. Officials in Los Angeles, where a single ticket can cost hundreds of dollars, moved this week to end a camera program there. Opponents question whether the cameras actually improve safety, noting that many citations are issued to drivers who simply don't fully stop as they take right turns at red lights. They also believe governments are largely using the cameras as a revenue source. At least one study, however, suggests the cameras save lives.

I've never got one (knock on wood) but ... Once a city puts in the cameras, they get used to the nice revenue stream from the tickets. Then people get used to it, they slow down and drive more safely through that intersection or stretch of road. Then the city leaders start complaining about the drop in revenue. That puts the lie to the idea that it is about safety. Also, if it were about safety, they would put the cameras in at the most dangerous places first, They don't. They put them in first where they are likely to make the most money. Doubtless the companies that install and maintain the systems push for that approach. I bet insurance companies love it too because it gives them an excuse to raise insurance rates while seeming to care about safety.